Published On: Wed, Jul 30th, 2014

The Atlantic Axis and the Making of a War in Ukraine

Christof Lehmann (NEO) : The war in Ukraine became predictable when the great Muslim Brotherhood Project in Syria failed during the summer of 2012. It became unavoidable in December 2012, when the European Union and Russia failed to agree on the EU’s 3rd Energy Package. The geopolitical dynamics which are driving the war in Ukraine were known in the early 1980s.

Hundred years after the shots in Sarajevo ignited WW I, Europe is again being driven towards disaster. Hundred years ago the presence of true statesmen could have prevented the war. Today many of the selected front figures of western democracies dress up in pilot uniforms while they hardly have the qualifications needed for a job as flight attendant.

No Gas Today_NEOThe handling of the tragedy surrounding the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 prompted Malaysian PM Najib Razak to leash out at those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the death of the 298 on board the Boeing 777-200. Showing true statesmanship, PM Najib Razak said:

“As a leader, there has never been an occasion as heart-breaking as what I went through yesterday. Wives losing their husbands, fathers losing their children. Imagine their feelings from such a great loss. … This is what happens when there is a conflict, whatever conflict that cannot be resolved through negotiations, with peace. In the end, who becomes the victim”?

The War in Ukraine Began in Libya and Syria.

In 2007 the discovery of the world’s largest known reserves of natural gas, shared by Qatar and Iran, led to the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project that was sold under the trade mark ”The Arab Spring”.

A joint Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian pipeline project was supposed to transport Iranian gas from the PARS gas fields in the Persian Gulf to Syria’s eastern Mediterranean coast and further on to continental Europe. It was this development that played midwife to the birth of the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project.

The completion of the Iran – Iraq – Syria pipeline would have caused a cohort of developments which were unacceptable to the US, UK, Israel and Qatar. Several continental European countries, including Germany, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic saw much more favorably at it. Together with the Russian gas which the EU received via Ukraine and the North Stream pipeline, the EU would have been able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.

It would be naive to assume that Israel was not gravely concerned about the prospect of Iran becoming one of the European Union’s primary sources of natural gas. Energy security concerns influence foreign relations and foreign policy. EU – Israeli relations and the influence Tehran would have attained with regard to the EU’s position on Palestine and the Middle East are no exception to that rule.

The US and UK were not interested in competition to the Nabucco project. Qatar, the main center of gravity with regard to the international Muslim Brotherhood, eyed its chance to become a regional power to be recogned with and sent a 10 billion US dollar check to Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Davotoglu. The money was reportedly earmarked, to be spent on preparing the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood for the Great Project.

An additional dimension that was overlooked by many, if not most analysts, was that the US/UK never would allow Russian – continental European relations to be dominated by an interdependence that had some 50 percent of continental Europe’s energy security at its heart. To explain that point, allow me to refer to a conversation the author has had with a top-NATO admiral from a northern European country during a day of sailing on a sailing yacht in the early 1980s. Discussing European security issues, out of the reach of curious ears and microphones he said that (paraphrased):

”American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.

It is safe to assume that the discontinuation of the USSR with help of the US and UK has not significantly changed the principle premises of this doctrine and that it is still valid today.

By 2009 the implementation of the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project was already in high gear. The former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas recalled during an appearance on the French TV Channel LPC in July 2013. (Audio excerpt)

”I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. … This was in Britain, not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me. …

” This does not make sense. … There are some sides who have the desire to destroy Arab States, like what happened in Libya before, particularly given Syria’s special relations with Russia., …(emphasis added)…That if an agreement is not reached, then Israel will attack and destroy the governments that stand against Israel”.

Note Dumas’ reference to Libya. Note that the statement came after NATO abused UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya to implement the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project in that country.

The then U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo H. Daalder and then NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Commander of the U.S. European Command James G. Stavridis published an article in the March/April 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, calling NATO’s ”intervention” in Libya ”A teachable moment and model for future interventions”.

The statement was repeated at NATO’s 25th Summit in Chicago that year. As Ivo H. Daalder also explained in a Forestal Lecure that year, there was a need for a new warfare, special warfare. Traditional conventional war had become impossible. Moreover, Libya was necessary as a hub for the shipment of arms and the recruiting and training of mercenaries for Syria, Mali, and beyond.

Defeat in Syria Made the Ukraine War Unavoidable.

In June and July 2012 some 20,000 NATO mercenaries who had been recruited and trained in Libya and then staged in the Jordanian border town Al-Mafraq, launched two massive campaigns aimed at seizing the Syrian city of Aleppo. Both campaigns failed and the ”Libyan Brigade” was literally wiped out by the Syrian Arab Army.

It was after this decisive defeat that Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign for the recruitment of jihadi fighters via the network of the Muslim Brotherhoods evil twin sister Al-Qaeda.

The International Crisis Group responded by publishing its report Tentative Jihad. Washington had to make an attempt to distance itself ”politically” from the ”extremists”. Plan B, the chemical weapons plan was hedged but it became obvious that the war on Syria was not winnable anymore. This, and nothing else was why the British parliament turned down the bombing of Syria in August 2013.

The war on Ukraine had become predictable from that point onwards and the timing of the developments in Ukraine during 2012 and 2013 strongly suggest that plans to overthrow the Yanukovich government and to aim at a long-term destabilization of Ukraine were launched after July 2012.

There was one last opportunity to turn the tide with regards to Ukraine in late 2012, during negotiations about the European Union’s 3rd Energy Package. Relations between Russia and the EU were stressed by a primarily British-sponsored initiative within the EU that was targeting Russia. The ”EU” or UK/US should not accept that a major energy provider like Russia or Gazprom had the majority ownership over both the gas and the transportation System.

On 21 December 2012 the leaders of the 27 EU member states and Russia held a summit in Brussels but failed to resolve the issue. It was from this point onward that the war in Ukraine had become unavoidable, which means that it was from here on, that powerful lobbies in the US and UK became hellbent on starting a 4th generation war in Ukraine. On December 22, 2012, nsnbc published the article ”Russia – E.U. Meeting in Brussels: Risk of Middle East and European War Increased”. The December 2012 article stated

”The sudden pullout of the Ukraine on Tuesday is by energy insiders with whom the author consulted perceived as yet another Ukrainian, US and UK backed attempt to force the expansion of NATO and to drive a wedge between an increased integration of the Russian and E.U. Economies. As it will become obvious below, it is related to an aggressive attempt to save the value of the petro dollar”.

By February 9, 2013, relations between Russia and core NATO members had deteriorated so much over Syria and the lack of convergence in energy issues, that Russia’s Ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grutchko said:

”Someone here in Brussels made a most profound point by saying that if you are holding a hammer, you should not think that every emerging problem is a nail. We think the world has ample opportunity to engage in energy cooperation and to ensure energy security without making use of military-political organizations as an instrument”.

There were not many who at that time understood the bearing of the Russian NATO Ambassador’s words.

On February 21, 2014 the Ukrainian parliament was seized by masked gunmen. The president was removed from office in a vote held in the presence of gunmen. One of the first official statements of the new powers at be was that the Russian language would no longer be accepted as the second official language in the predominantly Russian speaking eastern regions of Ukraine.

The statement was bound to and didn’t fail to elicit a response that would tear Ukraine apart. On February 22, 2014, some 3,500 governors from southern and eastern Ukrainian regions convened in Kharkov and rejected the legality of the putchist parliament and any of the laws it adopted.

Was the tragedy surrounding MAS Flight MH17 another Sarajevo moment and will it be used to throw an additional spanner into attempts to peacefully integrate the Russian and European economies? Michael Emmerson, associate senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies suggests ”After MH17, the EU must act against Putin and stop importing Russian gas”.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

About the Author

- New Eastern Outlook is primarily interested in processes taking place at the broad expanse that stretches from Japan and the remote coasts of Africa. However, we do not limit ourselves geographically. We also look at political events happening in other areas of the world as they relate to the Orient. We cover political and religious issues, economic and ideological trends, regional security topics and social problems.

Displaying 7 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Olga says:

    All details fit together into a uniform whole. There is no other reason of any war than the money and power. Especially nor is it religion, or it is as long as under capitalism money is religion.
    This is a good article that deserve to be translated and spread over the world.

    • Dear @ Olga.
      Thank you very much for your kind feedback. With regards to translations.. If you know any media in non-English speaking countries who could be interested in publishing the article in “correct” translations to other languages, please have them contact us at nsnbc. – Again. Thank you for the positive feedback. You can probably feel the frustration I have experienced, warning about that a war in Ukraine was planned since July 2012, without any of the state, corporate and foundation funded media (if that is what you want to call them) picking up on the facts.

  2. Jos van der Veen says:

    The game is over.

    We are witnessing the convulsive movement of a dying industrial age, which are the panic attack strategies by those who tends to lose power and control over most of us.

    We’ve created and maintained a true monster, not in the form of a person or a group of persons, but a society based on profit and exploitation.

    If we would allow the combination of science and technology, with common sense, we just might make it into the history books.

    If not, we are done for.

    • Debbie says:

      My dear Jos Der Veen.
      I agree about the convulsive moment. I agree about the system at the root of the problem. I also agree that a combination of technology and common sense (rather than genocidal Malthusian quacademics) can solve many of the problems BUT.. that is with regard to long-term planning. Right now we face a acute crisis and therefore I’d like to add this.. Make an address book with people whom to arrest if things become any worse. Citizens arrests, citizens courts. Add members of the Biden Family and their financial backers Soros, Rockefeller family, Rothchild family to the ones to arrest. Do you know their addresses? If not. It is high time you find out. Those people laugh at us if we mach protesting through the cities. We have to bring our outrage and protests to the doorsteps of their homes.

  3. I had determined this war was about gas and oil contracts in the Ukraine and was just more gobbling up of resources. This article though ties everything together perfectly and I already knew going after Iran was about saving the petro dollar, so I can see where this fits in as a contingency for losing in Syria.

  4. Dan Eisenk says:

    Dear Christof Lehmann.
    I have been following your writing since 2012. Maybe you recall our meeting about Zimbabwe in London so many years ago I don’t even remember what year it was. I always admired your perceptiveness, your understanding of psychology and politics to forecast developments. This is another great article about a sad subject. I just want to say that I understand that you must be desperate about forecasting one war after the other and people don’t do anything about it. If the NYT was worth its salt it would publish your work. Another problem is that frankly speaking, 99% f those who call themselves 2peace activists” are a bunch of sensationalist idiots who love to read blood dripping stories with picture of dead children, but they don’t do a sh… to prevent any war. Notorious complainers. REACTIONARIES in the true sense of the word. My deep respect and sympathies for you and your work.

    • Mr. Eisenk.
      Thank you very much and yes, of course I remember our meeting about Mr. Joshua Nkomo and Zimbabwean reconciliation. It is a real pleasure to read your comment. I’m honored about your statement that the NYT should publish my articles. I think we agree that it is not worth its salt. :D. You are right, it is frustrating to forecast conflicts without people responding. You are also right that most peace activists are reactionaries. We need to inform them better. Get them away from the NYT to nsnbc. I’m sure that could be one first step. The problem is that a lot of money is needed to get out to the at least 1/2 to 1 million people per day to make a real impact. Creating nsnbc has already cost more than I can afford. Sadly, money makes the world go around and without it, the number of people and the amount of good journalism we can deliver is limited. Best regards to you. What a surprise to hear from you after so many years.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>